"In the Southeast alone the number of recorded sites has gone from under 10,000 in 1970 to over 200,000 today [and] while modern field crews only rarely approach those of the New Deal era in size, the quantity and quality of the data far exceed that collected in earlier times."

Since the 19th century, American interest in archeological resources has been
reflected in a public concern with how these sites are interpreted and treated.
The Smithsonian Institution's first scientific publication was a careful recording
of monumental ancient architecture in the Midwest. Later in the 19th century,
alarm over the deterioration and unsystematic collecting at prehistoric sites
in the Southwest caused the government to set aside the ancient ruins at Casa
Grande in Arizona (1892) and Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado (1906) for
special protection. This same public sentiment resulted in a more general approach
to the preservation of American archeology that emerged, in 1906, as the Antiquities
Act. This bedrock assertion of the people's interest in archeology served as
the basis for further policy and statutes.

A national concern for archeology has been expressed in a number of events
throughout the 20th century. In 1916, archeological national monuments, along
with important natural wonders and scenic areas, were put under the care of
the National Park Service. In 1935, the Historic Sites Act expanded the scope
of federal concern to nationally important archeological sites, historic structures,
and places on private, local, and state land.

The 1930s also saw the incorporation of archeological investigations as part
of an effort to reduce unemployment through the Works Progress Administration
and other public assistance programs. In the late 1940s, concern about the effect
massive water control projects would have on archeological sites led to the
River Basin archeological salvage program, in which federal and state entities
funded, administered, or conducted research. The same regard for archeology
led to a similar program for the highway construction projects of the 1950s.

The 1960s and 1970s brought the National Historic Preservation Act, the Archeological
and Historic Preservation Act, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.
The former included archeological resources among other kinds of historic properties.
It also required that they be taken into consideration in the early planning
stages of federal projects.

These laws resulted in an explosion of jobs for archeologists in public agencies.
Today, the national program includes hundreds of archeologists in federal agencies
throughout the country, as well as in one or more public agency in each state.
A number of Indian tribes have also developed archeology programs. Many local
governments have hired professional archeologists as well.

These laws and public programs manifest our national commitment to archeology.
They are achievements to be acknowledged with gratitude. Recent political and
cultural challenges remind us, however, that we must be eternally diligent.
Fortunately, this need has been recognized by many in the archeological community.
The Society for American Archaeology, the Society of Professional Archeologists,
historical archeologists, and those in consulting firms and public agencies
have worked over the past two years to identify improvements needed in our national
program. This effort, "Renewing the National Archaeology Program," recommends
a series of actions.

We must do better in the application of regulations. In themselves, they are
adequate, but the true test of their effectiveness lies in how they are applied.
There are examples of excellent use of the regulations, but there also are some
that are dismal. Improvement will take more and better guidance for those involved
in daily practice, something that the National Park Service and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation are committed to providing. In addition to
this guidance, training in its application will be needed.

We need to find ways to take advantage of the wealth of archeological material,
records, data, and information that have been collected as the result of public
projects and programs during the past 30 years. Unfortunately, much is unevaluated,
unsynthesized, and inaccessible. Enormous (and growing) collections of material
must be managed better, made accessible, and require less expensive care and
maintenance.

Public education and outreach continue to deserve attention. Striking advances
in this area have been made in the last decade. Much remains to be done, and
these kinds of efforts need to remain a part of archeologists' typical activities.
This is especially so because not everyone views the archeological record from
an archeologist's or preservationist's perspective. Those who would exploit
sites for commercial or personal gain are one example. Another example is the
perspective of some Native Americans who believe that archeology is of no use
for understanding the past. Archeologists must counter these kinds of perspectives
if preservation and study of the archeological record is to have public support.

We have a strong foundation to build upon. We need to consolidate our gains
by improving how we do archeology. We also need to move forward, working for
more widespread understanding of archeology and effective preservation.